Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:28:16 +0100 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> To: Zbigniew Baniewski <zb@ispid.com.pl> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem with ACPI using Abit BE6-II V2.0 Message-ID: <20080817202816.GB1013@epsilon.local> In-Reply-To: <20080816231154.GA6333@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> References: <480C0DEF.2030707@root.org> <20080421095156.GA5263@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> <58AFE814-343F-4F83-94DA-A2979180C512@FreeBSD.org> <20080424171712.GA5180@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> <20080424234921.GR92261@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <48114123.3000708@root.org> <20080815141355.GA5116@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> <20080815155953.GA5044@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> <20080816225146.GP25055@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20080816231154.GA6333@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 01:11:54AM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 08:51:46AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > >So there's obviously something ACPI-related broken in 7.0, which works > > >in earlier versions. > > > > This doesn't follow at all. A more reasonable explanation is that 7.0 > > is more reliant on correctly implemented ACPI than older versions of > > FreeBSD > > ...so it has been broken in 7.0, while it was working before - and it > doesn't work by now. The rest is just semantics. > > Do you really want to say, it has been done quite intentionally? If so - > it's not good idea to entirely remove the well-tested code, which was > allowing to use more hardware without a need to disable some useful > features. > > But if it really is the case - I can't understand Nate's "join the team" > encouragement. There's nothing to fix, if "nothing's broken". > > > and so the breakage in your ACPI is more obvious. Your mobo > > is very old and probably includes only the minimal information needed > > to make MS Windoze work. > > ...and FreeBSD 5.3/6.2. > > > The easiest work-around is to disable ACPI. > > Yes, currently I had to. It's not the fact that something is not broken. Something is broken and it's your hardware, from what I can see. We can develop workarounds in software for bad hardware implementations, but, generally, these need to be well tested and, usually, those folks that have the bad hardware are those who develop the patches. Regards, -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080817202816.GB1013>